Five New Lessons about Crisis Management

Given the state of politics, it's probably never been easier getting into a crisis and never more difficult to get out of one without alienating someone. Unfortunately, this became true for a client that had been in business for a decade or so, and, for most of that time, had the good luck of avoiding any crises. 

We provided counsel to them, and compiled the following five lessons (some based on other observations):

1. Develop a crisis plan before a crisis. You may have built up goodwill and strong relationships with your customers and your community over the years, and have avoided a crisis – but that doesn’t mean you don’t need a crisis plan. Crises can happen to good companies but it makes sense to develop a plan. The plan should include a range of crisis scenarios – even though you should expect that the actual crisis probably won’t exactly fit into any one of your scenarios. But at least it starts the process of how to respond. If you don’t have a process when a crisis hits, it’s harder to know how to respond, and that’s when a potential small fire can start to burn out of control. The other aspect of a crisis plan that’s is important is developing an internal communications process so that when a crisis hits, different layers are informed and understand 1) that the company recognizes it’s dealing with a crisis; 2) that it is taking the crisis seriously; and 3) that people inside the company have the information they need to know to manage their jobs during the crisis. We’ve seen situations where board members, for example, didn’t know what the plan was and were second-guessing every time the company issued a statement.
2. Make sure to allocate appropriate resources. One of the other aspects of a crisis plan is to determine a task force of people who can focus on the crisis. Another aspect is to understand the potential costs. According to a colleague, one client felt the crisis would quickly die down so it asked that its agency to stop work several times over a two-week period, to save the budget, only to be caught short-handed as its crisis continued to spiral. They kept a short-term perspective both in terms of budget and in terms of working towards an outcome. Also make sure to have people monitor social media, and decide what to respond to and what doesn’t need to a response. And also to develop messages that appropriate staff can communicate to key stakeholders that include employees, customers, and others.
3. Sometimes clients are in a no-win situation. It’s important to understand, that through no fault of their own, clients may several possible paths – and none of them may be ideal because one group or another will be left unhappy. Social media reactions can make the in-crisis organization feel like they’re between a rock and a hard place. In that case, organizations need to consider:
• What’s the worst-case scenario and how can we minimize the likelihood?
• What’s the best-case scenario, and how can we make that happen?
• If we can’t avoid upsetting people on both sides, how can we minimize the impact?
• What steps do we need to take after the crisis is over to rebuild goodwill?
• Do we announce a post-mortem showing that we’ve learned our lessons?
• Do we suspend any of our operations – like advertising or even what’s on our social media platforms?
4. If you send an email to employees, expect it to circulate. This did not happen with our most recent client crisis but we’ve all seen this before. So keep in mind: Even a well-intended note to employees can be hard to craft, and you should expect that any email will be distributed to outsiders or posted on social media. Also keep in mind that if you communicate to employees in a town hall setting, someone may tape the discussion. The point here is just make sure that whatever you communicate to employees is something that you won’t mind seeing in print or on social.
5. Make sure to communicate via the channels most relevant to the upset. We have seen clients who responded to traditional reporters but ignored social media. Responding on social media may not be the right vehicle but it’s important to look at options. Please know that whatever you post could be misconstrued as easily, if not more so, than employee communications.

Please keep in mind that your experience, as they say, may vary. No-win situations are more likely given the politicized nature of decisions that used to be ones you didn't discuss with others. But that ship has long set sail. We're just saying that organizations may need to re-evaluate their plans, policies and responses based on this not-so-new reality.   

7 PR Lessons from O’Reillygate

(This post originally appeared on CommPro.Biz: http://www.commpro.biz/public-relations/reputation-management/bill-oreilly/)

The recent credibility scandals of Brian Williams and Bill O’Reilly are shocking and fascinating. But for PR and marketing professionals, there’s a lot that can be instructive.

• There’s no statute of limitations when it comes to the truth. Both scandals stem from incidents that took place between 12 and 33 years ago — long enough ago that it might seem the truth is no longer relevant. It matters if only because both Williams and O’Reilly retold their embellished Iraq and Falkland war stories several times within recent few years.
  • PR pros should keep in mind that a crisis could originate years before an executive joined an organization.

• There at least two ways to handle a scandal: 1) Issue an apology, conduct an investigation, and hold someone accountable or 2) Conduct a scorched-earth approach of attacking your critics and their character. NBC followed the first approach, O’Reilly and Fox, the second. Both can claim the victory of a post-scandal ratings boost.
  • Since no laws were broken, for PR professionals, the right approach depends, to some extent, on your brand and your audience. NBC suspended Williams to hold him accountable and protect its credibility — whereas had he apologized, O’Reilly would have greatly harmed his brand and his connection to his audience. In fact, keeping the controversy alive may actually strengthen the O’Reilly brand, ratings and value.

• If you decide to fight the scandal and your critics, don’t wait for the facts to start making your argument.  O’Reilly started attacking his critics well before he had time to assemble his facts. By doing so, he was able to frame the narrative to focus on the credibility of Mother Jonesand the other reporters who subsequently came forward in support of Mother Jones — instead of his own credibility — while keeping others off-balanced through intimidation and threats.
  • This is a case of “don’t try this at home, kids.” His scorched-earth approach is working for O’Reilly but he has a nightly bully pulpit, and you don’t. That said, framing the narrative is an important element of crisis communications, and can be done without resorting to oppositional research.

• By commenting on his show and in other outlets, O’Reilly is able to keep the attention where he wants it: on him aggressively attacking his critics. During a crisis, most organizations try to avoid speaking to the media. Not O’Reilly. He’s not hiding. He’s arguing his case on his program and many other outlets, providing new statements almost daily since the Mother Jones article hit. The resulting coverage has focused on O’Reilly’s eagerness to attack, which is a win for O’Reilly because it deflects attention (from questions regarding the credibility of his reporting) while showcasing O’Reilly brand’s combativeness.
  • Most organizations should not follow the O’Reilly playbook of attacking and intimidating reporters. But it can be a mistake to go silent, too, which lets the media spend endless cycle time speculating. For example, the NFL went silent during most of the intensive Deflategate speculation, and lost control of the narrative, which hurt its credibility.

• There is a distinction being made between journalist and pundit.The line between fact and opinion can be very blurry – but in the case of Williams and O’Reilly, the demarcation is widely recognized, and O’Reilly benefits from lowered expectations for pundits. (What’s being overlooked is that the questions about his accuracy stem from when O’Reilly was a reporter.)
  • This blurred line between fact and opinion is important to keep in mind when your client or CEO asks you to respond to an inaccurate opinion article. It’s almost impossible to get an opinion writer to apologize.

• Despite the media’s tendency to attach the word “gate” to every scandal, the media this time is not referring to it as “Williamsgate,” “O’Reillygate” or even “Truthgate.”This is far from the most important element but it speaks to the fact that some crises follow a certain pattern while others will go in a different direction from the crisis plan you assembled.
  • Good plans address likely scenarios and then also figure a way to address unlikely crises that may still occur.

• Truth is not always quantifiable and what’s at stake depends on your value system. Just as some people see that dress as black and blue while others insist it’s white and gold, there are two camps when here: Those who say the truth matters (and invariably cite a spinning-in-his-grave Walter Cronkite) and those who believe freedom of speech is more important. Where you fall has quickly become another political polarizing question.
  • For PR pros, it’s important to understand which stakeholders are important and what their perspective is – is an important element in determining the path you should take.

Despite all the acrimony from both side, there is one thing both O’Reilly and his detractors probably agree on — these lessons are irrelevant to them. But understanding them — like starting the vetting process to cover years before an executive joined the organization — may enable a PR function to better weather a future crisis.

Progressive Insurance's Crisis Response Looks a Little Regressive

People like to complain about several types of businesses: among them, cable companies, airlines, telemarketers, used car dealers, and insurance companies.

So on Monday, when comedian Matt Fisher published a devastating blog post entitled "My Sister Paid Progressive Insurance to Defend Her Killer In Court," about how Progressive mishandled (from his perspective) issues after his sister was killed in a car accident, the story took off and became a social media crisis.

From a crisis communications perspective, Progressive also mishandled this crisis.

That's surprising because Progressive has a Twitter team of 11 people, posting more than 6,100 total tweets, averaging a couple of tweets per day. So I might have thought the company would be more nimble to the negative response to how Progressive handled the Fisher case.

Yet, Progressive did not post any tweets on Monday. And did not post anything until nearly 3pm on Tuesday.

Instead, Progressive's initial reaction was an auto-response tweet, “This is a tragic case, and our sympathies go out to Mr. Fisher and his family for the pain they've had to endure. We fully investigated this claim ... and feel we properly handled the claim within our contractual obligations.”

Part of the problem with Progressive's response is that it seems biolerplate, detailed by legal counsel, not by actual human beings with real empathy for the situation.  

It's yet another example of by-the-book crisis communications that turns people off.  

As a public company, Progressive has to balance the necessity of its fiduciary responsibilities to its shareholders -- the fact that the company feels it "properly handled the claim within our contractual obligations" -- along with its need to maintain a brand that appeals to consumers.  One other variable affecting Progressive's strategy is that its stock price actually improved a few cents after the social media storm hit (from a low on Monday of $19.67 to a high of $19.96 midday Tuesday).

Progressive seems to have made the decision to ride out the social media storm, and cynically, that may be the best approach. Even if the company communicates its fiduciary responsibilities and explains more fully its "contractual obligations," those obligations can't hold up in a court of public opinion when compared to Fisher's horrible story. Progressive's approach: if we can't win, we won't play...for a few days.

Finally, just before 3pm on Tuesday -- basically 20 hours since Fisher's post -- Progressive finally posted a response to the criticisms.

It's a better response, and I think it's because someone inside Progressive realized that its brand image was being affected, even if its stock price was relatively unaffected. Progressive has invested years and millions of dollars to develop a recognizable brand epitomized by good-natured, slightly wacky Flo -- while portraying the other guys as working for a company that places "contractual obligations" over policy holders. 

Progressive finally recognized that they had to make a change to its response, and did so by putting a specific person's name to the response, and while it wasn't warm-and-fuzzy, the explanation -- "There was a question as to who was at fault, and a jury decided in the Fisher family’s favor just last week. We respect the verdict and now can continue to work with the Fisher family to reach a resolution" -- shows them moving for a solution. 

In this case, I hope they follow "contractual obligations" and pay the Fisher family the full balance owed them under the policy.

But Progressive's reaction -- its officious initial comment, the delay in responding -- shows the failure of following by-the-book response crisis management that generates a generic response that can be used in almost any crisis.  Instead, crisis communication templates should always provide room to customize the response to address the specifics of the current crisis. That's something a number of recent responses to crises have forgotten.

"Natural" Causes Problems for Companies like P&G, J&J and Kelloggs

This week, we've seen two consumer companies get called out for misleading consumers about the ingredients in their products. 

Procter & Gamble was subject of calls to reformulate its Tide Free & Gentle (fragrance free) and Tide Original Scent because they included low levels of a 1,4 dioxane, a possible carcinogen. And Kashi was booted off the shelf of an organic food store because the owner found Kashi uses genetically engineered, non-organic ingredients.

Both companies issued non-apologies that stated they did not break laws of do anything wrong.

Legally, that seems to be correct. But both brands have a responsibility to their consumers that go above "not breaking the law" -- and that is to make sure their ingredients live up to its marketing.

This is more of a challenge in an age of social media, where this kind of information can spread quickly. Transparency when it comes to ingredients is important given the trend that public health advocates are looking at the formulations of products Americans use to see if the products are natural, if that's the claim, or might harm users.

Knowing that, companies like P&G, J&J and others should get out in front, start evaluating and reformulating their products. The fact is they're going to reformulate their products -- P&G did so with its Herbal Essences line last year and J&J is going through with its reformulation of Baby Shampoo despite initial response that it wouldn't do so.

The point is these companies should get ahead of the issue -- even highlight being proactive in weeding out problematic ingredients. But for some reason they're not doing so. They're risking controversy that they can avoid.  True, some consumer don't care, but committed "natural" consumers do care, and it makes no sense to alienate these consumers. And, to be clear, the alienation happens twice: once because of the ingredients and again because of non-apologies that don't address the consumers' concerns.

Johnson & Johnson Misdiagnosis of its Crisis

Perhaps it depends on how you define "crisis," but there are more than 200 articles by the third day of the month about the concerns about Johnson & Johnson's baby shampoo as well as a movement to boycott J&J. (Not every call for a boycott is a crisis -- on Facebook, there's a list to boycott those who boycott Arizona, so you can have counter-boycott boycotts.)  In fact, this is a big crisis for a brand that last month ranked by Forbes as the most trusted brand in America. This is particularly true because of the concern that some ingredients put babies at risk.

Yet Johnson & Johnson doesn't seem like it's hoping the issue will go away, even as it has posted some information online and on a couple of its Twitter feeds.

For example, there didn't seem to be much activity on Facebook about it, including on the J&J page -- there's one post from the company, from Tues., a day after much of the coverage started hitting. Meanwhile, there are 45 posts on the J&J Facebook wall, most of them from people venting how upset they feel, how they feel the company betrayed them and put their kids in danger.  The lack of engagement is turning off some customers, so that they're feeling as if J&J is not listening to them.

I don't think that's the case, though. I'm sure J&J is listening, but is figuring the company doesn't get much benefit from engaging with angry customers. And there isn't much benefit to engaging if the company is not willing to make changes that address customers' concerns about the possibly carcinogenic ingredients.  The company says it has been reformulating and phasing out some ingredients, but two years have passed and there are still some ingredients that have yet to be replaced in the new formulation.

Meanwhile, J&J has posted a handful of Tweets pointing to the long statement.  Again, it doesn't seem like the company is going out of its way, and possibly for the same reason.  While the company has several Twitter feeds, you'd

have to know where to find them (@JNJStories, @JNJHistory and @JNJComm) to see the posts, which merely offer a link to the long statement. Even the blog post (called JNJ BTW) isn't effective.

Part of the problem is that there's a lack of emotion or a lack of conveying that the company understands the emotion that its customers are feeling. While the organization raising awareness about the ingredients has a Twitter ID (@nontoxicissexy, and while much of the coverage includes a photo of an adorable baby, J&J's "A Statement on Ingredients in the News" doesn't address the emotion and concern -- it doesn't even include a photo of an adorable baby.  Instead, the statement is a rather dry, stoic response, one that hides behind language like "The ingredients used in JOHNSON'S^® Baby products, including preservatives that are designed to release tiny amounts of formaldehyde to protect against harmful bacteria growth, are safe and approved by regulators in every country or region in which they are used, including U.S., EU, and China."

Really? J&J should have realized that citing the fact that some ingredients meet the standards set by China would not help its case.  After all, China has its own safety and quality control issues, since the country has repeatedly let toy companies export lead-paint-covered toys, among other harmful ingredients and products.

I would be surprised if J&J does not completely reformulate its products to take out formaldehyde and other preservatives. As it is, the company merely says, it takes reformulating its products require "extensive efforts, which require complex testing and significant clinical studies to insure that new formulations meet our high standards for safety, mildness and gentleness." But I don't know why J&J doesn't just announce that it responding to concerns, and that will finish that process within a set timetable. They would be in a better position if they did so. Right now, it seems like the company is taking a hit it doesn't need too -- because it will eliminate formaldehyde. The challenge for J&J is that when it does finally sell formaldehyde-free baby shampoo, the company can't really make a big deal of it. It has a teachable moment that it's not effectively using.

11 Lessons from Weinergate

We knew it was a train wreck when Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said he could not say "with certitude" whether or not that now infamous photo was of him.

Here are some lessons learned from the past two weeks.

1. Do not take a picture of your junk. If you feel compelled to do so anyway, do not take the photo with your cell phone and do not load it onto your computer -- it's too easy for something unpleasant to happen.  This might seem obvious, but clearly it's a lesson that Brett Favre and Anthony Weiner could have benefited from.
2. Do not share pictures of your junk. Nothing good can come from it. Doing so is unlikely to get you what you want. And, if you're a public figure, is more likely to make the day for your political enemies and late-night comedians. Even Jon Stewart, who on previous editions of the "Daily Show" has said he's good friends with the congressman, had to take Weiner to task.
3. Social media is a great way to connect and engage with people you've never met, but limit the nature of the conversations you have with people you don't know. Your parents told you not to talk to strangers for a reason. This is particularly true for the Internet, where no one know if you're a dog. (Apparently in more senses than one.)
4. If you feel you must respond when a woman says she thinks you're politics are "hot," focus on the politics, not the "hot." It may be flattering for someone to call you "hot," but it's never good for married politicians to respond to those compliments.
5. If you're not sure if a conversation you're contemplating or actually having is appropriate, it probably isn't. Before you post or hit send, ask yourself, if this is made public, how would TMZ respond? What will Andrew Breitbart do with this content? 
6. A little flirting may be okay, but persistent over-the-line conversations are not. Keep in mind that those online conversations that you think are sexy and fun will actually look especially sordid and creepy when other people can read them. Keep that in mind the next time you consider engaging in those sorts of conversations.
7. If a photo or conversation is made public, do not lie and say your account was hacked if, in fact, your account was not hacked. Eventually, the truth will come out, and now people will know, among other things, that you a liar. And a bad one at that. 
8. Remember: it's usually not the deed but the cover-up that causes problems. True, it would have been embarrassing for Weiner to admit at the start that the photo was his. But had he admitted the truth up front, he would have spared himself two weeks of humiliation. And he would have more credibility.
9. By not answering questions clearly and succinctly, you actually raise the distraction level. Weiner is an otherwise feisty, smart and astute politician, with a lot of media experience. He should have realized that providing fuzzy, contradictory answers only stoke the scandal's flames (and not in a way he wanted to via his online exchanges).
10. If you schedule a press conference to finally admit what we all know to be true, do not let anyone else -- especially a political enemy -- commandeer your podium before you get there. Instead, if you're going to be late, at least station a staffer to prevent anyone else from usurping your microphone and airtime.
11. If you hold a press conference to make a teary confession, do not take questions afterwords. Make your statement, explain that you're sorry you've hurt those closest to you, that you made and learned from your mistake, and then left the podium. There will be no sympathetic of softball questions from the media, like, "Congressman, now that this is behind you, are you glad to get back to focusing on the business your constituents elected you to do?

There's clearly a 12th lesson here that was once best illustrated by the Daily Show with a faux press conference but you'll have to search for the link on YouTube.

Check out Don't Be A Weiner for other lessons and a good post on Forbes.com, 5 Tips for Handling a PR Crisis like Weinergate. If you have other lessons from this recent crisis, let me know.

Chrysler & the F-Bomb

Last week, someone working for Chrysler's social media agency accidentally dropped the f-bomb in a tweet from Chrysler's Twitter account, @ChryslerAutos.

You can read about it in Matt Wilson's article in Ragan.com's PR Daily, "F-bomb appears in Chrysler’s official Twitter account."

In his follow-up article, Matt asked some worthwhile questions:

• Did Chrysler overreact to accidental f-bomb tweet?
• Should the automaker have fired the social media manager who sent an offensive tweet? 
• And could it have been spun into a positive? 

Matt points out that when something similar happened to the American Red Cross, "who turned a tweet about beer meant for a personal account into sympathy and blood donations."

But I don't think the situations are analogous.

For one thing, there's a big difference between what was posted on the Red Cross' Twitter feed and Chrysler's -- namely the latter used the F-bomb.  (You can read about the Red Cross' rogue tweet here.)

I think Chrysler couldn't just brush it aside and make a joke of it.

It's one thing for Melissa Leo at the Oscars or Steven Tyler on "American Idol" to let loose, but it's quite another for a company selling an expensive item to a mainstream population.

Plus, a brand has to earn the ability and the trust to joke with its constituents.

And while I enjoyed driving a Jeep for a long time, Chrysler's brand is not a jokey brand (as opposed to most domestic beers and alcohol brands, and, surprisingly, some insurance companies). Which is to say that we don't expect Chrysler to be making jokes -- so if they had tried to joke away the F-bomb, I think it would have fallen flat.

More than that, I doubt the internal culture at Chrysler is one that would feel like turning this gaffe into a joke.  This is not a judgment of Chrysler's culture.  Just some companies can't tell a joke.

What's interesting about social media, especially as illustrated by this situation, is that each organization operates a bit differently.  Everyone's learning and a lot of companies are making mistakes.  But each company's culture, resources, capabilities and relationships are different so that two companies in the same sector may operate and behave quite differently.

And that's ok.  It shows that an organization's focus and values truly are important and that when communicating your organization culture and personality, it's critical to truly understand that culture and personality.

Let me know what you think.

In the meantime, for some good steps for how to handle a mistweet, check out "It’s Okay to Mess Up" by Beck Johns.

Carnival's Crisis Turns Into Social Media Case Study

There's a lot of potential for crises in the travel business than most outsiders realize, either from equipment problems like Qantas experienced and Carnival's Splendor fire to natural disasters like the Icelandic volcano that disrupted travel to and from Europe this spring and the Indonesian volcano that erupted this week.

The combination of smartphones and social media makes it very easy for stories to get out to a wider audience than would have been possible just five years ago. We can expect that these kinds of stories will continue to generate noise, and companies need to prepare for that eventuality -- as opposed to hoping that the public's interest and appetite for such news will wane.

This week's two crisis alone provide an incentive for travel companies (but not just travel companies) to update their crisis plans to make sure they address social media as a communications vehicles, something Qantas did not do. (See, Five Lessons on Twittering During a Crisis: Lessons from Qantas.)

Here are some lessons learned from Carnival's response:

1. Carnival did a good job using Facebook and Twitter. There were regular updates on Carnival's website, and links posted on Facebook and Twitter. Carnival might have posted more frequently than once or twice a day, but it did respond when someone said the link to the Splendor's status was not working. (When I clicked on it, the link worked.) And the company posted more frequently as the Splendor reached San Diego.
2. Carnival did a good job when it posted links to the on-board blog post written by Splendor's cruise director, John Heald. The post was positive but also acknowledged the reality, noting: "most important facts and those are that the ship is safe, the guests are safe and that nobody was injured in what was a very difficult situation. I also want to tell you that the guests have been magnificent and have risen to the obvious challenges and difficult conditions onboard."
3. Once Carnival started reporting on the Splendor, the company halted its regular promotional posts -- the ones highlighting locations, ships, even a regular weekly contest -- clearly recognizing that business as usual was not appropriate while a ship was stricken. That was a good move.

In terms of what's next: I think there's some concern about the conditions, and whether or not the ship really turned into "passenger hell," so a lot of the immediate coverage will focus on those conditions. The fact remains that the passengers and crew were safe -- that's important.

Carnival should continue to use social media to communicate any feedback the company gets from passengers -- and already there's a lot of positive feedback on its Facebook page. I think the company should report back on any lessons learned, perhaps something like, in the even a ship is similarly disabled in the future, Carnival will get non-perishable food other than Spam and will develop a process so that people don't have to wait two hours in line for Spam sandwiches.

It's been a busy week for travel crises and social media. There are certainly things that Carnival can improve -- what other lessons do you think are important, please let me know,

(In the interest of disclosure, I've had past connections to Carnival, but I do not and have not worked for the company. )

Five Lessons on Twittering During a Crisis: Lessons from Qantas

Twitter may still be a punchline for late night comics, but PR and communication functions can't treat it like a joke.

That's especially true during crises when information may be posted before traditional journalists can process the news. And I mean "process" in a good way -- checking out the information, confirming facts, etc. If journalism is history's first draft, then Twitter may be history's notes.

The Qantas incident is a case in point about Twitter. (Check out a good overview article here,
Qantas A380 incident: a lesson in social media and web PR.)

Apparently, at the same time Qantas responded to broadcast reports, the company ignored information on Twitter. Some bloggers correctly said that if Qantas was able to make statements to broadcast news outlets, it should have also posted the same response via Twitter.

I agree. But having worked with global companies, I think the problem with Qantas' response isn't that the company doesn't "get" Twitter.

I think some of the problem may have been structural. Here are some points global companies need to consider to effectively manage a crisis.

1. Positive news about a company may only appeal to a specific in-country geography, but a crisis crosses borders. For example, we had a client that launched retail technology in England for a US company -- and every US-based outlet said they could only cover it when the technology was available in the US. (Despite multiple stores using that technology in England, we finally got coverage when a single store in Cleveland started testing the technology.) But bad news, as Qantas found out, isn't limited to Singapore and Sydney -- it can become global. Companies need to think about a global response, not just one focused in-country.
   
2. Global companies need to make sure their communications functions are thinking globally. In this case, the communications team in Sydney may not have thought to respond on a Twitter account in the US because the accident occurred en route from Singapore to Sydney. Part of the problem, as we've seen with some global clients, is that communications functions are distributed by geography, with little interaction or coordination among teams. Instead, companies should consider a global response so that PR functions in different countries have the tools -- latest information, for example -- to respond to reporters and bloggers in their own countries, even if the crisis happened overseas.
   
3. Global companies need to make sure to prepare for and incorporate social media as part of their response to a crisis. But they also need to make sure in-country PR functions think globally during a crisis. After all, even if Quantas had thought about updating its US Twitter feed, it would not be unusual for the communications team in Sydney to not have the password for the US Twitter feed.
4. Companies need a better way to manage their social media assets, and a crisis is a bad time to find out that you're not prepared. We've seen a number of global companies that have different Facebook pages and Twitter IDs for each geography and language, which makes sense for day-to-day business. The problem is that key communications people in other geographies should be able to update social media sites in cases of emergencies. (If it's not an emergency, people outside the geography would have no need to update the site.) Instead, companies should develop a comprehensive list of all social media accounts, user names and passwords from all geographies, as well as the "owner's" names and contact info, in one document. For example, it's not enough for each geography to compile a list of all social media accounts, user names and passwords -- a step that I'm sure most companies do not take (but should). That way, if a crisis occurs in Sydney, there's someone in Sydney who can post information on the US Twitter account without having to wait several hours before being able to connect to someone in the US who can find the person with access to the Twitter account. With that comprehensive document, key people in different geographies can update accordingly and on a timely basis.
5. Global companies should consider maintaining a global corporate Twitter ID to address global issues.Apparently, Qantas only had two accounts, one for the US market and one for travel agents. Not enough -- because where do people in other locations turn to for information?

For more insight, check out Matt Wilson's article on Ragan.com, "Qantas’s big #fail in quelling tweeted rumors of a crash."

PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs, Part II

The Harvard Business Review or other business school magazine will be covering the 2010 crises for lessons learned, and someone will try to make money writing a book about these crises and how the companies should have avoided making them worse.

It's always easy with hindsight. That said, gathering lessons learned can help developing and executing your crisis plan. (Check out some lessons learned here: PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs.)

Without a plan -- and sometimes, even when you do have a plan -- a crisis can alter the perception of the organization, cloud their minds when it comes to objectively assessing the facts, the internal and external perceptions, the priorities, even the right move. Having a plan helps identify the priorities and action steps.

Of course, having a plan does not prevent the distortion, does not prevent the exhaustion that can cause more problems.

One thing that can get overlooked during a crisis is the need to communicate to your employees, customers, and partners.

For public companies, it's critical to communicate with your board of directors and major investors. Even if you handle the situation, you may lose the confidence of the board or shareholders if they feel you have not been honest with them. That's part of the reason H-P's board pushed out Mark Hurd, despite the fact he had turned around the company. Poor communications with his board after a poor response during an ice storm is part of the reason that JetBlue fired its founder David Neeleman. Good communications plans identify in advance who the crisis team needs to keep informed.

BP Report on Cause of Spill Does Not Difuse Crisis

One of the lessons in PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs is to not blame other people or factors.

"There's not a lot of news when the company takes responsibility and moves on," James Donnelly at Ketchum, told the New York Times.

But BP apparently doesn't read this blog or the New York Times.

Today, it issued a report that found several companies at fault in the spill. Among the findings in a BP-sponsored report are some that, as the Times notes, "While it puts some responsibility on BP for errors made — such as misreading pressure data that indicated a blowout was imminent — the report tries to undermine the notion that the company acted with gross negligence."

Because it still blames the leak on the work of other companies, this report is, as the Times understates it, "is unlikely to carry much weight in influencing the Department of Justice, which is considering criminal and civil charges related to the spill."

So why did BP issue the report?

The Times called the report "a public relations exercise."

But I think it won't work. Again, blaming others is another way to avoid responsibility. Doing so dilutes a company's ability to take corrective action to prevent future crises. Not only does blaming others dilute the public's confidence in all the companies involved, it especially dilutes the public's confidence -- hurting the brand value -- of the company doing the blaming.

Transparency & Crisis Prevention -- Advice from Eric Schmidt

After writing about crisis management lessons from recent events (PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs), I came across a column by Google CEO Eric Schmidt that ran in Forbes.

Schmidt's point: thanks to a 24- hours news cycle, secrecy isn't so easy to come by. (Most people talk about a 24-hour news cycle, but to be clear, we're not saying it takes 24 hours for news to hit; news hits hourly, if not faster.) That's not necessarily a bad thing.

According to Schmidt, the real question is:

"What are our choices when we, whether as individuals or businesses, get it wrong--sometimes badly wrong? We can try to conceal our blunders, as so many people have done for so many centuries. But in a world where everything is recorded and stored, that is not a realistic option.

"Nor should it be. For a company that aspires to true significance or an individual who wants to rise to prominence, the question is, "How should we behave?" The answer must be, "We did the best we could and did so transparently." In time this should move from a defense to an expected standard."

I think it's good that a business leader like Schmidt endorses transparency, and that it will help pursuade other companies of the need to embrace a new way to operate.

But I sometimes I wonder if the idea of business transparency is just another business fad. Perhaps social media's significant contribution will be to make transparency part of the standard operating proceedure for business.

You can read Schmidt's column here.

PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs

The cover of Sunday's New York Times Business Section was: what not to do in case of emergency, drawn from the recent examples of BP, Toyota and Goldman Sachs. I would also add H-P to that list, though obviously to a lesser degree.

It's well worth reading the article, but here are some lessons, drawn from Peter S. Goodman's article. Please note: what follows is general advice, not directed at or in response to any particular company or specific situation.

1. When faced with a potential crisis, don't delay in responding. At the same time, don't give off-the-cuff responses. If you need to research the situation, say so, then provide regular updates because of course you'll need to evaluate the issues involved.
   
2. Don't blame other people or factors. You can't spin your way out of a catastrophe. "There's not a lot of news when the company takes responsibility and moves on," according to James Donnelly at Ketchum.
3. Don't take an adversarial position with the public, government officials or the media. After all, when the crisis is over, you'll need to maintain good relations with customers, regulators and the media.
4. You don't always have to get out in front of the story, according to Eric Dezenhall, who believes there may be some situations where the issues are just against you, and it's best to "absorb the pounding," in the words of the Times article. Tiger Woods' scandal may be an example of when it might be best to make an apology and drop out of view.
5. Don't start post-crisis communications efforts (usually done via TV spots and the phrase, "working together, we're solving this issue") while the crisis has not yet been solved. It will look insincere. However, it's okay to start communicating your apology and taking responsibility for the crisis.
   
6. Don't forget your communications goals: As Dezenhall says, "It's the height of arrogance to assume that in the middle of a crisis the public yearns for chestnuts of wisdom from people they want to kill. The goal is not to get people not to hate them. It's to get people to hate them less."
7. Don't provide the updates you want to hear. Provide accurate updates. Credibility will be important after the crisis has been forgotten. But people will remember if they felt you were not truthful.
8. Don't get caught between your attorneys and your PR team. Your attorneys will advise against taking responsibility because that may open you to law suits or make it easier for plaintiffs to win their claims against you. On the other hand, your PR team will advise you to be as open as possible. You've got to draw a line in the sand, and stick with it, and not get caught in ongoing arguments from either side.
9. You should prepare a crisis plan to keep focused on how to research, resolve and communicate about a crisis. That means you should update the plan, too. If you pull your crisis plan out of your desk, does it include how to monitor and address social media? If the plan was created six years ago, it's way too old because that was before Twitter, YouTube and other tools that can communicate the other side of the story -- i.e., not yours -- fast.
10. Don't go off message. Recent off-the-cuff messages by CEOs sparked more controversy, and became the main story element for the next 48 hours or longer. If the message is off, it can have a stronger impact than much of what you're doing right. Who can forget Pres. George W. Bush's "You're doing a heckuva good job, Brownie" to Michael D. Brown, the then-head of FEMA in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina -- when the opposite was clear to everyone watching TV.
11. Remember to communicate internally. Too many companies circle the wagons in a hastily set war room, and forget to communicate to their employees, customers, and partners -- these are potential allies who can help. They can also lose confidence if the only information they're getting is from external sources.
12. Keep your board of directors and major investors informed. For public companies, it's critical to communicate with your board of directors and major investors. Even if you handle the situation, you may lose the confidence of the board or shareholders if they feel you have not been honest with them. That's part of the reason H-P's board pushed out Mark Hurd, despite the fact he had turned around the company. Poor communications with his board after a poor response during an ice storm is part of the reason that JetBlue fired its founder David Neeleman. Good communications plans identify in advance who the crisis team needs to keep informed.
13. People in a 24//7 war room still need to take a break. Exhaustion can distort perception, realities and priorities. A crisis can alter the perception of the organization, cloud their minds when it comes to objectively assessing the facts, the internal and external perceptions, the priorities, even the right move. For that reason, people inside the war room need to make sure to take a breather, go for a walk, get outside the war room mentality so that they can be effective. We can never know for sure, but if Tony Hayward had taken a break, he might not have said during an interview, saying apologizing and saying "There's no one who wants this over than I do," that "I would like my life back."
14. Don't blame the 24/7 news cycle. According to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, writing in Forbes: "What are our choices when we, whether as individuals or businesses, get it wrong--sometimes badly wrong? We can try to conceal our blunders, as so many people have done for so many centuries. But in a world where everything is recorded and stored, that is not a realistic option. Nor should it be. For a company that aspires to true significance or an individual who wants to rise to prominence, the question is, 'How should we behave?' The answer must be, 'We did the best we could and did so transparently.' In time this should move from a defense to an expected standard."
15. Even if you have a plan, you need to be able to adjust it as necessary. The nature of a crisis is that you can't always anticipate how the narrative unfolds. Developing and rehearsing a crisis plan is important. But it's also important to know when to change directions and adjust tactics, mid-crisis, to achieve your goals. After all, too often a seemingly minor issue can become the story -- like when the CEOs of the major US automakers flew on separate private jets to testify before Congress. The point: you may have to sort out the realities of the actual crisis as well as the perception around the crisis, and those perception issues follow a different, unexpected path.
    

For more, check out the Times article. The hardcopy also included a sidebar, "Three P.R. Nightmares" (not available online) that listed the cost of the impact the scandals had on the stock prices of Toyota, BP and Goldman. Interesting proof points to why crisis planning is important and valuable.

US Chamber of Crisis & Hoax

For the US Chamber of Commerce, it's business as usual in terms of climate control. They continue to act as if the Chamber is not in a crisis.

But a rogue group held a press conference at the National Press Club pretending to be the US Chamber of Commerce in order to communicate views on climate change that it thinks the Chamber should hold. That's not just a PR stunt. It's a sign of frustration.

I am not condoning the actions of the faux US Chamber. Here are scenes from the faux press conference:

But I continue to believe that the US Chamber has a crisis, and is burying its head in the sand while trying to maintain its position on climate control.

Which is to say: the US Chamber is not doing a good job communicating why it believes its position makes sense. It is not doing a good job in establishing a conversation with opponents to its views. Perhaps it thinks there's nothing to be gained from engaging in a debate about how to address climate change.

But I believe that a lot of people are frustrated with the Chamber's position, and are being turned off by it.

That's why, even though the faux press conference was sparsely attended, there were so many reports that the US Chamber had changed its perspective.

The Chamber's response to all this? To circle the wagons, and not use this as opportunity to make their case. I think it's a mistake.